From: | Mark Kirkwood <markir(at)paradise(dot)net(dot)nz> |
---|---|
To: | Andrew Sullivan <ajs(at)crankycanuck(dot)ca> |
Cc: | pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: Quad Xeon vs. Dual Itanium |
Date: | 2004-02-14 01:29:49 |
Message-ID: | 402D7A0D.8030207@paradise.net.nz |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-general |
Wouldn't you only care about 64-bit Postgres if you wanted to make
shared_buffers bigger than 4G?
Various other posters have commented about the sweet-spot for
shared_buffers being ~ 100-200M (or thereabouts).
So it seems to me that there is nothing to be gained using a 64-bit
binary with the current or previous Pg releases. However, with the new
cache replacement system being used in 7.5devel, the situation *may* be
different (wonder if anyone has tried this out yet?).
regards
Mark
Andrew Sullivan wrote:
>On Mon, Feb 09, 2004 at 12:46:58PM -0500, Christopher Browne wrote:
>
>
>>Lots of people have been running it on 64 bit systems for _years_ now.
>>The Digital Alpha architecture, for instance, was introduced in the
>>1992, and Sun UltraSPARC in 1995. PostgreSQL has been running well on
>>these sorts of systems for a lot of years now.
>>
>>
>
>But actually, there are problems with using postgres as a 64 bit
>application on Solaris. It works, and it's reliable, but I've never
>seen any evidence that it helps anything (and I've looked plenty).
>
>A
>
>
>
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Dann Corbit | 2004-02-14 02:11:08 | Re: Quad Xeon vs. Dual Itanium |
Previous Message | Ron St-Pierre | 2004-02-14 00:47:40 | Re: How to determine current database? |